Think on this Vortex for a while. And yes, a Jesuit was a key player in the Vatican II document that was key in the spread of false ecumenism - or ecumenicide as it is more aptly called. Our Church leaders did sell us out bigtime, substituting "social justice" for the Church's true mission of saving souls.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Church Militant TV (CMTV) could help resolve the CDF-SSPX doctrinal issue by identifying the exact doctrinal error.The same doctrinal error is responsible for confusion on ecumenism.
ReplyDeleteThey can cite suggestions by Catholics focusing on the precise doctrinal error, which has been identified but still not acknowledged by the CDF or the SSPX.
This could be a format for the CMTV to build upon.
Title:CDF-SSPX Reconciliation: the specific doctrinal error
Michael Voris :
Welcome to the Mic'd Up ...
As you know there were doctrinal talks between the SSPX and the Vatican initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, in which priests from both sides met and tried to resolve their doctrinal disagreements. But that did not result in the reconciliation hoped for. Why could they not agree on doctrine since the Church's teachings are still the same, as both sides claim.Nothing new can be added to Church doctrine since there is no new Revelation.
We do not know what exactly they discussed during those talks, since the Vatican side led by the then Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J, now a cardinal and the present Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wanted the talks to be kept secret.
Here in this episode of Mic'd Up we would like to explore the doctrinal issue in public, with the hope of resolving it.
Ryan Fritzgerald: Presents a video clip with backgroud information.
There have been many comments on blogs with Catholics discussing this issue..One of the bloggers claim that there is a missing link, one piece of the jigsaw puzzle which we need to place in position to get the whole picture correct.It was always there before our eyes and many Catholics noticed it. Many expressed themself but were blocked by their religious superiors others kept silent for various reasons.This would be a new direction in trying to solve the SSPX-CDF doctrinal impasse.To understand this view point and the conclusion reached we have to go back to 1949 when Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney , who held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cardinal Marchetti inferred that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire ( implicit desire for the baptism of water by a catechuman who died without receiving it) were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was supported by the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, Jesuit theolgians and the Boston hierarchy.Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated and expelled from the Jesuit community. Four Catholic professors who also held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma were expelled by Boston College....
Michael Voris:
Thank you Ryan.
In this issue of the Mic'd up can we take a new look on the doctrinal issue, a new direction.This is a view supported by many priests and reports of it have appeared as comments on many blogs.
___________________________
continued
Continued - 3
ReplyDeleteThe Church had accepted that there were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. This was no knew doctrine on salvation.It would be incorporated in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14). The Church was no more saying that there was exclusive salvation, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church was no more exclusivist and the Holy Office had accepted that there was salvation outside the Church. Even the traditionalists, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre agreed.They accepted that Fr.Leonard Feeeny was wrong and the Holy Office was correct in 1949, years before Vatican Council II.
Rodney: Video clip.
Now bloggers are asking, they are trying to figure it out, how can people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water, be exceptions on earth to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation?
Something seems wrong.How can people who do not exist in our reality be defacto known exceptions today to all needing faith and baptism to go to Heaven?
Similarly how could someone in the past, who died allegedly without the baptism of water, like the Good Thief on the Cross or St.Emerentiana, be a visible and known exception in 2015 to all needing to enter the Church formally for salvation?
Or for that matter, how could we say that someone we know today will be saved tomorrow without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Yet this is exactly what SSPX priests and the CDF theologians have been saying.They are only repeating of course, the Marchetti inference.
The catechuman who died without receiving the baptism of water and is saved is a theoretical case. How can a hypothetical case for us be a defacto exception to the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Michael Voris:
A blogger indicates that this is the centre of the doctrinal problem between the CDF and the SSPX. It is also the central doctrinal issue with the sedevacantists CMRI,MHMFM etc.But they not realize it.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance had nothing to do with the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is the doctrinal error. For both the SSPX and the CDF being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the new doctrine accepted by both sides.
They both have created this new doctrine, like Cardinal Marchetti, on an irrational premise and conclusion.
The false premise is that people in Heaven are known and visible to us in the present times, today.
The false inference is that since these people, saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are physically known and visible to us and so we have objective exceptions to the traditional teaching which says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.
So the false conclusion for the SSPX and the CDF is that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradict the traditional rigorist interpretation of the dogma, since it mentions exceptions(for them).
So we have identified the doctrinal error.
continued
Continued- 4
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if we avoid it? Is the Church's teachings exclusivist once again ?
We have with us John Martignoni, an apologist with the Archdiocese of Birmingham in Alabama and who has a program on EWTN.
Welcome John...
There are many reports on the Internet which quote you on this subject. You say that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. These are zero cases as you put it.
John Martignoni:
Yes. Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is something obvious.No rocket science here.
So Lumen Gentium 16 being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Michael Voris:
Are you saying that there is no rational basis for the new doctrine ?
John Martignoni:
Yes.A dogma cannot develop and it definitely cannot develop based on an irrationality....
Michael Voris:
We have also with us Fr.S.Visintin, who is the Dean of Theology at Univeristy of St.Anselm, Rome, the Benedictine university.
Michael Voris:
Welcome Fr....
As a theologian, do you think there is any basis for this new doctrine accepted by the CDF and SSPX, both groups who are in a deadlock over what is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.
Fr.S.Visintin OSB:
I think it should be obvious to all that we do not know any one in the present times saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. This is common knowledge.So there is no doctrinal basis for this teaching which emerged in 1949 in Boston.Today there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to St.Benedict in Norcia.
Michael Voris:
So our two guests have identified the doctrinal error.
They are saying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma.
It is for the CDF and the SSPX to formally comment on this.
continued
Continued- 5
ReplyDeleteSimon presents a video clip here:
Also note: Church documents before 1949 only mention being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.They do not state that these cases are known to us to be exceptions to the dogma. This is not there in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent.
They do not state directly that there are exceptions to the dogma.
This has to be inferred and it was inferred wrongly by cardinals Marcheti and Cushing and the Jesuit theologians. This is an important point made on blogs.
So we have identified a doctrinal error.
1.there are no known exceptions to the dogma.
2. There is no magisterial text before 1949 which claims there are known exceptions.
Where do we go from here?
How can there be a doctrinal reconciliation between these Catholic groups and also the many sedevacantists who cite doctrine as a reason for their break with Rome ?
Michael Voris:
Once the two groups, CDF-SSPX make an announcement that there are no known exceptions in the present times (April 2015) to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, a new vista has opened.
We are back to traditional doctrine and theology.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance/good conscience), Lumen Gentium 8 ( saved with elements of sanctification and truth outside the Church), Nostra Aetate 2 ( saved with a ray of that Truth which enligtens all men), Unitatis Redintigratio 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) etc are not known exceptions to the dogma.
Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and an ecumenism of return.
So both groups could accept all the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church alongside Vatican Council II , which do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors or the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
So do we reject LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc?
No. We accept them as possibilities. They can only be possibilities for us human beings.
We accept them as possibilities which will be followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.All need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
We must realize that Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits placed LG 16, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II based on the Marchetti error.They inferred that there were known cases in the present times ( 1960-65) who are in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So there was salvation outside the Church for them.
This is a new doctrine.It is irrational ( the dead are visible!?) and has no historical precedent in the Catholic Church before 1949.
CONCLUDED